Last Night I was finally able to chat with my friend about her ordeal at the shooting in Vegas Sunday. She was bartending at the concert and thought the gunfire was fire works until her barback who was standing right next to her got shot in the chest! all the bartenders and luckily a nearby off duty cop and nurse found shelter behind the bar...bullets whizzing past their heads...kegs were being riddled with bullets...and a few drunks occasionally trying to reach over the bar to get a drink...seriously dude?

She said that wasn't the scariest part....the scariest part is they had no idea what was going on...so when the crowd started to jump over the top of the bar...she thought it was the shooters and they were about to die. When the gunfire finally stopped, the cop said, we got to get out of here. He threw the barback over his shoulder and led the way out. As it turned out they were all lucky. They all survived. The bullet pierced the barbacks lung and he's still in the hospital but he's going to be fine.

Anyway, the huge corporation my friend worked for told them all to come to the hotels ballroom to pick up they're checks for the night, (people at the concert had looted the cash register and took all their tips so her wages would be the only money these poor people would get) and that they would have counseling there and food.

So she goes to the place and finds out that the lawyers told the place to not give them all food or counseling for liability reasons. Really?

I feel as though that would be the least they could do. Do we really need to legislate human decency?

It should be against the law for employers to not give the least amount of comfort they could in times of tragedy. It's a no brainer. There should not be a fear of being sued for that! The fear should come from being sued for lack of human decency. I think the shooting is a separate issue here. I am just asking the question...why must we always fight for people to do the right thing? Why is this even a question?

I am reminded of a story I heard a long time ago in williamsburg, Virginia. it seems back in the times people owned slaves, when the slave got too old to work, the slave owner would just send them out to pasture to die. They would not feed or house them any longer. So they actually had to make a law that said, if you own a slave you have to take care of them until death do you part. Can you believe that? They actually had to make a law!!?? WTF?

Civilisation anonymises people.
I think there is a genuine urge to co-operate, share and contribute to the community that has evolved over a million years and more. But when societal numbers increased beyond a certain number that allowed predatory psychopaths to take advantage and slip between the cracks.
Small scale societies are generally egalitarian and tend to have strict rules on sharing and behaviour.
These days you need something else that can offer the fellow feeing that we have all evolved with to thrive.
In the USA the culture of the self (or should I say cult of the self) has pretty much crushed the feeling of community and that is just how the powers like it; a divided people is much easier to control.

I think the shooting is a separate issue here. I am just asking the question...why must we always fight for people to do the right thing? Why is this even a question?

...one reason, because the system has become so perverse that when one tries to help others you may get sued afterwards or become embroiled in some kind of legality which lawyers thrive on. Send all the lawyers to China instead of all the dogs that get butchered there and things may get better!

World peace and no-suffering could be tacked on as a rider, so don’t worry, we would still call it The Decency Act.

That way we could label opponents as, Indecent.
But that may be too obvious.
Call them, Decency Deniers.
That says it all, no need to think.

And, if anyone asks about the details of the legislation, just smirk and say it will have to be enacted as law before we can know the details.
Like former House majority leader Nancy Pelosi* did, when asked about The Affordable Care Act known as Obamacare.

World peace and no-suffering could be tacked on as a rider, so don’t worry, we would still call it The Decency Act.

That way we could label opponents as, Indecent.
But that may be too obvious.
Call them, Decency Deniers.
That says it all, no need to think.

And, if anyone asks about the details of the legislation, just smirk and say it will have to be enacted as law before we can know the details.
Like former House majority leader Nancy Pelosi* did, when asked about The Affordable Care Act known as Obamacare.

*Democrat

Just like a *Republican to be all for laws about discrimination but not for any promoting kindness.

I agree that Progs lying to the people about Obamacare is in no way kind or decent, no matter how convincing, slick, faux-presidential, or big the lie ... no matter how much you need it to be true, no matter how good it makes you feel.

Artisticsolution 's original post and Hobbes Choice's response to it reminded me of the solution, which Artisticsolution despite their name has not mentioned. The solution to the problem of alienation from human kindness is artistic. The solution lies in the sort of reportage which is about human feelings, and also novels and theatre (live and film plays) which are about human feelings.

These studies of human feelings are as necessary parts of school curriculums as science and technology.